In case you have not heard about it, MSNBC suspended Keith Olbermann without pay indefinitely. He made some private contributions to political campaigns, which is in their handbook as being an ethics violation for journalists.
Fair enough.
But can someone please explain to me how it is that Fox News can donate $2M to the GOP and not have it be an ethics violation? It seems to me that if the Corporation can make any unlimited donation but the human employee cannot, then we have a really upside-down situation.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
Mock Paper Scissors 
TG, simple answers to simple questions:
IOKIYAR
LikeLike
Faux News and MSNBC are different entities.
However, there is something troubling about a “news corporation” giving money to politicians.
LikeLike
Keith™ needs to incorporate.
LikeLike
Lib –
I know that they are different entities, with different parent corporations owning them; Fox is owned by NewsCorp and MSNBC is owned by NBC (GE and soon to be ComCast) and MS (who wants out).
My point is that the Citizens United decision is protecting the free speech of a corporation to donate wildly, and yet, a private citizen does not have the same protection.
There’s a strange discrepency here, I think it could be challenged.
Regards,
Tengrain
LikeLike
I’m looking foward to watching “Countdown with Jim Cramer”.
LikeLike
It’s all a ratings ploy. Just don’t ask me why MSNBC is after lower ratings.
LikeLike
Tengrain: I owe you a bit of an apology. The first thing I read about this was your blog posting. After reading more of the background you had when writing it, I can see why you would be suspicious of every aspect of this.
LikeLike
No need to apologize, I don’t think I was that clear, either.
I’m still not sure how it is legal since money=free speech according to the SCOTUS, but I suppose that if falls into contract law; nevertheless it seems to be enforced capriciously with their right wingers (Buchanan and Mornin’ Joe being allowed to make wingnut donations).
Anyway, I stopped watching TeeVee nearly 5 years ago; I catch his Worst Person in the World segment now and again when they are on Crooks and Liars; I don’t really have a horse in this race. That said, there is a principle here that really bugs me. I see corporations as having more rights than people, and it is just wrong.
Rgds,
TG
LikeLike
Tengrain: I think you will be interested in this action alert from FAIR.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4192
If Olbermann’s Donations Are Bad, What About GE’s?
LikeLike
For those that care, boldprogressives has a petition up, over 116,000 signatures as I write this.
http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/petition_olbermann/?akid=2637.231700.OvLZsq&rd=1&source=e1-12mo-tst&t=1
Not bad for an afternoon/evening, that’s 10% of his viewers.
I think voices need to be raised.
LikeLike
Already signed the petition (might be at another site) – and you should too, Scissorheads.
Rgds,
TG
LikeLike
My letter to Mr. Griffin:
Mr. Griffin –
Your action in re: Keith Olbermann has caused you and MSNBC some real PR harm (but you know this already); the longer you delay remedies, the greater the harm.
Personally, I would make a point of either reinstating Olbermann, or applying your rule equally to Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough. Right now you come across as a fool and a right-wing bigot with an axe to grind, and MSNBC looks like an opportunist trying to cash-in on the Tuesday elections.
You have no credibility with your target audience the longer this continues, and you know it.
Regards,
[Tengrain]
LikeLike
Well said Tengrain. This was a disgraceful act.
LikeLike
Finally, all Maddow all the time!
LikeLike
Here’s Rachel’s segment on the suspension
LikeLike
Ten: I think the problem is that MSNBC is claiming that Olbermann was required to tell them about the contributions before he made them. So not a free speech issue, it’s an employment contract issue. That said, I saw the clause in question and it said that people should inform…etc. “Should” is not the same word as “must.” Gawker got some dirt suggesting that MSNBC’s “policy” doesn’t even apply to that channel, just to NBC (and limited to journalists, not hosts of opinion shows). Long and short, Comcast bought NBC, I hear that the new head of MSNBC is a republican hack, and I bet they were looking for something. I hope Olbermann sues them for every fucking penny they have. And uses his settlement/award to start a real news channel. Hey, why not dream big?
LikeLike
Pissed –
Yes, I think it is a contract issue, ultimately, and should is not a declarative clause.
And yes, ComCast (along with all the other cable service carriers) are extremely right wing. They all were birthed during the Saint Ronnie period, they all demanded that they NOT be regulated by the FCC, and they have reaped billions e’re since. The irony of a cable provider buying a broadcast network is not lost on me, nor should it be on anyone else.
We need to keep watching these bastards: from unregulated land, they are buying the public commons. Nothing good will come from this. Watch this space.
Regards,
Tengrain
LikeLike
Comcast doesn’t have control of MSNBC yet, they are waiting for regulatory approval.
Not that Comcast wouldn’t make this move when they are in.
LikeLike
okay, i’ll be the bad guy here, and everyone can hate on me. i think that everyone has made way too much of this. number 1, ko hasn’t been fired, he’s only been suspended. the guy who filled in for him and rachel said so on the air, so there’s no chance the bosses would be stupid enough to fire him. number 2, he signed his contract. now, i know that people are claiming that there is a clause in his contract that says that he should ask for permission to make campaign donations, not that he must. that might be the standard contract for all nbc employees, but i would bet that ko’s contract was drawn up specifically for him, under the watchful eye of his attorneys, and i doubt that we really know what it says. in addition, you can be sure that msnbc has lawyers who were consulted before ko was suspended. it’s been noted all over the internets that squinty scarborough has gotten away with donating to candidates and even appearing with them. we don’t know what his contract says or whether he got permission from tptb first. number 3, ko broke his own rule. i remember a few years ago, i was watching countdown, and ko said that he doesn’t vote, because he doesn’t want to have even the whiff of bias in his reporting. i always remembered that, because i thought that he was really committed to his profession if he would go so far to make the sacrifice to not vote (and i do think it would be a sacrifice to give up my vote). that was before the special comments and when he wasn’t as open as he is now about where he stands on issues. maybe his contract was signed back in the day when he was more journalist than opinion-giver, and the clause in his contract about campaign donations didn’t bother him at that time, because he didn’t think he’d be making any donations.
all that said, i’m not quite sure where i stand on the issue. don’t get me wrong, i watch countdown every day, and i would be pissed if ko was fired. i’m still bristling over david schuster getting the boot. i can understand news organizations wanting their reporters to appear unbiased. however, nobody can be totally unbiased, and i think i’d prefer journalists being able to exercise their first amendment rights and donate to any candidate they wish to support. however, it should be noted that the journalist is supporting a candidate, if they are reporting on them. i’d rather know that they’re biased so that i could factor that into how i process their reporting.
i think i’ll wait to hear ko’s side of the story before i get outraged or not. okay, you may fling tomatoes at me now. 🙂
LikeLike
I don’t think this is a free speech issue. It is a contract issue. Don’t confuse a corporation’s “freedom” to donate as a legally recognized “person” with how that corporation treats its contracts with employees. I don’t like Citizens United or other SCOTUS decisions that treat corporations as people, but I also don’t think Olbermann’s free-speech rights are being abrogated here. An employer has the right to limit what an employee says and does, especially if it impacts the labor that they do for the company. Kerry Prejean and Dr. Laura both had to learn this important legal distinction the hard way, not that that prevented them from whining about it on Fox.
Different news companies have different policies about reporters/commentators making political donations or even schilling for a candidate. Maddow makes the distinction between MSNBC and FoxNews clear. And I like how she is using this issue to mark a significant difference between those cable news outlets. Olbermann violated his contract and is being punished by his boss.
It is worth noting that the Olbermann-Griffin relationship has been strained, with Olbermann often disavowing him as his boss. I think Griffin is pushing back. It is a classic conflict of egos in the media personality arena. But Griffin’s timing is pretty bad, and I think lots of folks sore after Tuesday’s election are ready to fight back. And yes, this is an invitation to invent conspiracy theories on all sides of the ideological divide.
LikeLike
If he had asked, would MSNBC had said it was ok to contribute? I suspect not. It’s a pretty bogus rule, I think.
LikeLike
@nonnie999
“i can understand news organizations wanting their reporters to appear unbiased.”
That’s just it. Keith isn’t unbiased, I don’t believe he was hired to be unbiased, he certainly doesn’t appear unbiased.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link love. I have to give you some credit for getting me to really start thinking about this.
LikeLike
Aside from the hypocrisy, this problem looks like a clash about whether contract issues or free speech issues should dominate.
It is a fact that one’s freedom under a corporation contract can be more restricted than that of an average person (or a corporation) under the Constitution. While this appears to be contractually acceptable, should it be so under the Constitution?
When is it legal for a corporation to inhibit their employee’s constitutional rights? Especially since SCOTUS has declared that corporations are people and money is free speech.
LikeLike
If he had donated to the republicans there probably would not have been so much as a harrumph. harrumph, harrumph, – hey, i didn’t get a harrumph out of that guy (blazing saddles).
I signed the petition. this is idiotic.
LikeLike
I always figured the corrupt, connected suits at MSGOP would someday shiv KO. He rubs the Gooper power and money pimps the wrong way and that’s why I think he’s a valued media figure. He still says what needs to be said, and he paved the way for that liberal lineup on that network.
I also think he’s been taken for granted, people forget when CHRIS EFFING MATTHEWS was touted as the leftie. Gag me.
Given the way they’ve kept David Shuster in the deep freeze, anything this management does is no surprise.
KO
LikeLike
skinny dennis,
when ko was first on msnbc, he really was pretty much unbiased and much more of a reporter than someone who did commentary. it wasn’t until obama was running to be the democratic nominee that he really took off his reporter’s hat and put on a commentator’s hat. i don’t know when he signed his contract. if it was before he decided to do more of an opinion show, then maybe he wasn’t as concerned about the clause in his contract.
i agree with bungy. this is not a free speech issue but a contract issue.
LikeLike
It IS a contract issue – I’m not disputing that.
Juan Williams (for instance) said something stupid and faced the consequences, this is different because it is telling Olbermann that he cannot speak without getting it cleared by the brass first.
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not qualified to speak authoritatively, but even with just a quick perusal on the Google I think it is that case that contracts cannot (and should not) negate your constitutional rights (I think the exception is the Military); a clause that tells you that you cannot participate in free political speech is indeed violating your first amendment rights – it is pre-empting you from speaking.
It still is outrageous.
Regards,
TG
LikeLike
how many places would keep you on the books if you went around town bad-mouthing the establishment? is it a violation of your first amendment rights that you can’t go around telling people that your boss is an asshole and the company you work for is overpriced and under-delivers without your getting fired? i’m not a lawyer either, but i think the first amendment allows people to speak freely without the government interfering with your right to do so. however, private companies and other people can disagree with what you say and choose to not employ you or even hang around with you. you have the right to say whatever you want to say, but you don’t have a right not to suffer the consequences for what you said. if ko didn’t agree with that clause in the contract, he should have refused to sign it. he didn’t, so now he has to suffer the consequences.
LikeLike
Again, I’m not arguing that it wasn’t rash, and that after saying something you suffer the consequences. I’m saying that telling you up front you are not allowed to say something, as part of your employment, sounds like oppressing free speech, and is suspect. It’s a subtle difference.
Rgds,
TG
LikeLike
but isn’t that what we all do all the time? we give up our freedom of speech when we agree to work for a place with a dress code. we give it up when we agree that we won’t tell a customer to go fuck himself. we give it up when we move into an apartment building and we agree not to post political posters on our doors. we make these little deals all the time. we are constantly giving up our freedom of speech to bosses, to places of business, to landlords. sometimes, we give up our freedom of speech voluntarily–we choose not to curse in front of a nun or a child. sometimes, our limits are dictated to us–you can’t wear a t-shirt on casual friday that says my boss is an asshole. we decide what we can live with and what we can’t. if wearing a uniform is too confining to us, then we don’t work at a place where uniforms are required. if we want to post political campaign signs on our doors, we don’t live in apartment buildings that prohibit them. we have the freedom to choose whether we are willing to give up some of our rights of free speech or not. in ko’s case, he signed the contract. he knew what the limitations were that would be put on him, and apparently he was okay with them at the time. if he doesn’t like the limitations now, he can try to get msnbc to change the rules. however, he really doesn’t have the right to bitch about it. in fact, he hasn’t been bitching about it. we haven’t heard anything from him.
LikeLike
Nonnie –
I see a difference from the social contract (play well, get along with others) and being told explicitly before the fact that you cannot do something in your private life with your own money unless you clear it with the boss first. I know that this is in his contract, I’m just not certain you can put that sort of thing into a contract.
I can understand that the Code of Conduct says that as a member of MSNBC you represent NBC. I get that Juan Williams used his NPR street cred on Fox, said something appalling, and was terminated. I think that there is a difference because Olbermann was not representing MSNBC, he donated as a private citizen with his own money on his own time.
Maybe it might seem like a question of degrees, but to me it steps over the line. The funny thing is that I don’t really like Olbermann that much. I think the fact that he made a donation to some politician and then had him on for an interview and that relationship was not disclosed was really slimey and unethical. I’m not impressed.
Now that act of not disclosing this relationship, that is mosdef grounds for suspension if not termination, but that is not what they suspended him for doing.
Rgds,
TG
LikeLike
tg, i know what you’re saying, and i agree that it sucks that someone can’t make a political donation without checking with tptb. however, there are lots of things that people can’t do when they’re contractually obligated to someone else. many people who make a living appearing on tv (and in other jobs) have morals clauses in their contracts. even if they are on their own time and in no way representing the companies they work for, they can still be fired for personal behavior. that infringes on their free speech, but that’s what they agreed to.
i think the discussion should be what should be expected of journalists and who counts as a journalist and who is a commentator. what should be demanded as far as disclosure? do we have a right to know if a reporter is registered to vote, and, if he is, do we have a right to know what party he’s affiliated with? should it be company policy that dictates that, or should it be up to individual reporters? what about the networks themselves? should they have to disclose which political parties they are donating to and how much? what about personal relationships? does the viewer have a right to know that a particular reporter was at a cocktail party the night before with the same person s/he is interviewing the next day? can we count on a reporter to be unbiased when s/he has a personal relationship with politicians or lobbyists? i think those are more important than ko getting a spanking.
LikeLike
Nonnie –
I’m not disputing any of that. I think that there are some ethics and journalism standards. That said, I don’t think any employer should have the right to put in a contract what you can/cannot do with your own money, on your own time–with the very important exception of the military. Contracts can be illegal, just ask the Mafia. ;^)
If MSNBC went after Olbermann for not disclosing the donor relationship and then interviewing him, I would be standing in their corner, cheering them on. But they didn’t do that.
I don’t see this as being much different from the McDonalds franchise that threatened their employees to vote for Republicans. The employer is impinging upon their rights before the fact.
Regards,
TG
LikeLike
here’s an interesting article about this from 2007 from, ironically, msnbc:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/
LikeLike
I feel you, ten. But KO negotiated that contract. And for a princely sum. It is not wrong for a business to identify potential conflicts of interest. If KO wanted to argue that this is a ridiculous restriction (especially give Fox contracts or corporate donations), he had the opportunity. And if I start limiting a company’s right to fire/suspend/fine/etc. an employee for violating a contractual clause they agreed to, I find myself less able to dismiss Ms. Perusal or “Doctor” Laura’s first amendment histrionics.
That said, you make the clearer case that this is a PR nightmare for Griffin and MSNBC. And the timing is truly awful. They would have been better served handling this quietly (a warning since it is a first time violation) rather than allowing it to become the weekend’s big issue. Instead, it has shined a light on a host of hypocritical contradictions in the policy at MSNBC and beyond.
LikeLike
Ha! My autocorrect made “Ms. Prejean” into “Ms. Perusal.” Something insightful about that, I think.
LikeLike
obviously i know too much to comment
but this has NOTHING to do with KO’s contributions or his political positions vis-a-vis the govt
NBC can not say not to KO’s donations and yes to Scarborough’s – that would be illegal and they would be slapped with a $100 million dollar civil suit by KO
and Nonnie is correct – you work for a company – your speech is still protected from govt intervention but NOT the corporation’s
hence your emails are company property. and dress codes – they have the right to make a workplace “suitable”
this has nothing to do with free speech, blogspiracies or not……..
it has everything to do with corporate palace intrigue
LikeLike
Kids –
It’s just my opinion –I’m not stating these are facts, and I’m not a lawyer. Shit, I had a Security Clearance once upon a time, I know what a contract is and how they work, you don’t have to convince me or educate me about that.
All that said, I still think this is wrong — not necessarily illegal — but flat-out wrong, and I would not be surprised if it did not stand up in court.
Regards,
TG
LikeLike
dcAp,
i have no doubt that griffin has it in for ko and will look for any excuse to slap him around. however, that doesn’t make what he did illegal. i’m not even convinced it’s wrong. ko has several times gone after faux for allowing their employees to contribute and endorse candidates. it was stupid of him to give griffin and anyone who doesn’t like him this ammunition against him. i’m not saying i agree with the policy. i’m still on the fence. maybe people should declare themselves to be either journalists or commentators. i don’t have a problem with commentators donating to candidates, but i do have a problem with journalists doing so, as well as hobnobbing with the people they’re supposed to cover without bias.
LikeLike
ABC News (of all people) has a story on KO tweeting thanks to his followers, but is otherwise still not commenting.
I’m no expert on Olbermann, but from the timeline of events in that story is it not possible to suspect that Keith contributed to Democratic candidates he thought needed his help and then reported himself to MSNBC executives to bring about just such a tempest — and thereby shining a light on this situation?
According to the ABC story, “Olbermann asked a leading Democratic lawmaker if Congress should pass a law banning journalists from making political contributions,” during a story on Faux journalists shilling on air for Republican contestants.
It does seem to be the new trend for left-of-extreme-right television journalists to put themselves into their stories.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/keith-olbermann-breaks-silence-twitter-feed/story?id=12082531
LikeLike
Griffin caved
http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/Content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=2458&NewsAreaID=2&ClientID=7
“After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night’s program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night.”
LikeLike